Page 22 - Managing Change in Organizations
P. 22
Carnch01v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:08 PM Page 5
The profile of ambition
to bear on the question of how ambitious we can and should be when consider-
ing proposals for change.
Finally, with regard to problem 3, we will look at a range of individual, team and
organizational issues relevant to any understanding of change management. Here
we will look at change diagnosis, at leadership, at the change coping cycle model
and much more. We will also seek to show how the various issues implicated by
problems 1 and 2 form part of the context of people’s attitudes and how behaviour
is formed in any given change setting. Ultimately our objective is to show what we
understand of how to make change. We seek to go beyond the bounds of doubt
that we often see when practitioners discuss major changes. Here we seek to focus
on what we know and on what we can reasonably infer from experience. Much still
remains uncertain and difficult to predict but our view is that we should build on
what we know so we can make changes with greater confidence sustained by the
thought that we can learn more from the experience of doing so.
The profile of ambition
How then can business leaders conceive ambitious strategic change? What does
ambition mean in this context? Clearly competitiveness is key, just as clearly
understanding the assets on which competitiveness can be based is also impor-
tant. But we must also beware naive assumptions. As Hampden-Turner (1996)
demonstrates, a focus on a single factor can bring immediate success and longer-
term failure. But Kay (1993) probably lays the most appropriate foundation. For
him the differentiator on which market power is based is known as ‘distinctive
capability’. In turn this is based on the following:
■ Reputation: essentially the market perception of product/service offerings in
terms of tangible attributes – linked to brands.
■ Architecture: the relationship of resources including knowledge and flexibility –
i.e. internal, external and networks – which the firm can bring to bear.
■ Innovation: the capacity to change.
For distinctive capability to be a source of competitive advantage, however, it
must be sustainable. Here the truth is that nothing is ultimately sustainable as the
fortunes over time of many a major corporate demonstrate all too clearly. Scale
and market share help but Kay (1993) infers that the management of public policy
might be just as important (e.g. Microsoft). All of this points to the need to
understand how to create and maintain value-added as the foundation of corpo-
rate success, the argument as presented by Kay (1993).
Value-based management is a watchword of current management. It means dif-
ferent things to different observers. For some it is about economic value added,
shareholder value and the like. For others the key is social capital (Fukuyama,
1995). Taking this latter view, others see value-based management as more than
simply a matter of value-added. Mission, purposes and strategy require or imply a
statement of corporate values. Managing a business as if values matter then attracts
our attention. Herein lies the argument about alignment. Success will come to those
whose strategic architecture aligns vision, mission, values, strategy, structure, etc.
5